Learn from the mistakes of others

Call to beef up new junk food ad code
Julian Lee Marketing Reporter (July 17, 2006)

A NEW code regulating the marketing of junk food will not stop children becoming obese, the Australian Consumers' Association says. It has repeated its call for the Federal Government to step in and legislate.

*headdesk*

Regulations and laws can't make people lose weight.

"We don't believe that a voluntary code is going to provide adequate protection for children from advertising of unhealthy foods that may influence their food preferences and the food they eat, which in turn will impact on diet and nutrition and have the potential to contribute to overweight [sic] and obesity," the association's food policy officer, Clare Hughes, said.

And I don't believe you can legislate 'protection' of this kind into existence.

We need to change the priorities of the keepers-of-the-purse-strings. Education ought to come before corporate handouts, for example.

Children's 'food preferences'? Perhaps some people ought to be reminded that they're the adults. They're responsible for making decisions on behalf of the children in their care ...

You can't legislate maturity into existence.

Call to beef up new junk food ad code
Julian Lee Marketing Reporter (July 17, 2006)

A NEW code regulating the marketing of junk food will not stop children becoming obese, the Australian Consumers' Association says. It has repeated its call for the Federal Government to step in and legislate.

*headdesk*

Regulations and laws can't make people lose weight.

"We don't believe that a voluntary code is going to provide adequate protection for children from advertising of unhealthy foods that may influence their food preferences and the food they eat, which in turn will impact on diet and nutrition and have the potential to contribute to overweight [sic] and obesity," the association's food policy officer, Clare Hughes, said.

And I don't believe you can legislate 'protection' of this kind into existence.

We need to change the priorities of the keepers-of-the-purse-strings. Education ought to come before corporate handouts, for example.

Children's 'food preferences'? Perhaps some people ought to be reminded that they're the adults. They're responsible for making decisions on behalf of the children in their care ...

You can't legislate maturity into existence.

PAPER CHASE NEWSBURST
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Google settles 'click fraud' lawsuit for $90M
Cathy J. Potter at 10:38 AM ET

[JURIST] Google [corporate website] has agreed to pay up to $90M to settle a class action lawsuit [PDF complaint] filed last year in Arkansas state court, alleging that Google and other online search engine companies overcharged for pay-per-click advertising, in which advertisers pay a fee every time an internet user clicks on their ads. "Click fraud" occurs when fraudulent users click repeatedly, with no intention of buying. Motives for malicious clicking vary, but the result is increased cost to companies for unproductive Web traffic.

Oooh! We're not allowed to look, we're supposed to buy? Besides, since when did n00bs automatically become malicious?

Seems to me that the business model might be a little broken, perhaps?

The Google agreement [press release], once approved by the court, will cover all advertisers who claim to have been charged but not reimbursed for invalid clicks dating back to 2002 through the date of settlement. Google maintains that the level of "click fraud" is very small; the settlement, less than one percent of Google's revenue over the last four years, supports the claim. Yahoo, Inc., also named in the suit, does not intend to settle.

I wonder what Yahoo intends to argue?

AP has more.

PAPER CHASE NEWSBURST
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Google settles 'click fraud' lawsuit for $90M
Cathy J. Potter at 10:38 AM ET

[JURIST] Google [corporate website] has agreed to pay up to $90M to settle a class action lawsuit [PDF complaint] filed last year in Arkansas state court, alleging that Google and other online search engine companies overcharged for pay-per-click advertising, in which advertisers pay a fee every time an internet user clicks on their ads. "Click fraud" occurs when fraudulent users click repeatedly, with no intention of buying. Motives for malicious clicking vary, but the result is increased cost to companies for unproductive Web traffic.

Oooh! We're not allowed to look, we're supposed to buy? Besides, since when did n00bs automatically become malicious?

Seems to me that the business model might be a little broken, perhaps?

The Google agreement [press release], once approved by the court, will cover all advertisers who claim to have been charged but not reimbursed for invalid clicks dating back to 2002 through the date of settlement. Google maintains that the level of "click fraud" is very small; the settlement, less than one percent of Google's revenue over the last four years, supports the claim. Yahoo, Inc., also named in the suit, does not intend to settle.

I wonder what Yahoo intends to argue?

AP has more.

stratfor.com PUBLIC POLICY INTELLIGENCE REPORT 04.06.2006

Ending the CSR Debate
Bart Mongoven

note: the text here came from an email from stratfor.com - which requires you to pay to access most of their content ... the mark-ups here are my own - i didn't see any point leaving in links that i couldn't use. [the text is in usa english. sorry.]

The debate over the moral responsibilities of corporations to society has taken on a more solid form with the release of the first draft of the standard known as ISO-26000. When finished, the standard -- drafted by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) -- can be used by corporations to determine (and prove) that they are acting in a socially responsible manner. The standard will not be published until 2008, and the current draft reportedly is in a highly unfinished form, with many significant questions still to be answered. Nonetheless, the release of the draft marks a turning point in the long-running debate.

there is debate about whether "corporate social responsibility" even exists ... and what, if anything, it might actually mean.

the idea of an international standard for corporate social responsibility intrigues me greatly. (hence, i suppose, this post :)

trust is getting bandied about a bit now and then as an important - even crucial - factor in corporate success. at the very worst in the form of 'branding' [or as i put it recently, blanding]
( Read more... )

stratfor.com PUBLIC POLICY INTELLIGENCE REPORT 04.06.2006

Ending the CSR Debate
Bart Mongoven

note: the text here came from an email from stratfor.com - which requires you to pay to access most of their content ... the mark-ups here are my own - i didn't see any point leaving in links that i couldn't use. [the text is in usa english. sorry.]

The debate over the moral responsibilities of corporations to society has taken on a more solid form with the release of the first draft of the standard known as ISO-26000. When finished, the standard -- drafted by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) -- can be used by corporations to determine (and prove) that they are acting in a socially responsible manner. The standard will not be published until 2008, and the current draft reportedly is in a highly unfinished form, with many significant questions still to be answered. Nonetheless, the release of the draft marks a turning point in the long-running debate.

there is debate about whether "corporate social responsibility" even exists ... and what, if anything, it might actually mean.

the idea of an international standard for corporate social responsibility intrigues me greatly. (hence, i suppose, this post :)

trust is getting bandied about a bit now and then as an important - even crucial - factor in corporate success. at the very worst in the form of 'branding' [or as i put it recently, blanding]
( Read more... )